Talk:Florestan I, Prince of Monaco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European Microstates, which collaborates on articles related to European Microstates. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related work groups: Monaco work group

[edit] Florestan I

How come Florestan is styled Florestan I ("the first"), when to my knowledge there hasn't been a Florestan II ("the second")? I thought a monarch/Prince was only given an enumeration if there was more than one. SKС 16:18 UTC

[edit] Using International dates

The current policy is as per this MoS reference:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Perhaps Nunh-huh is referring to this section on disputes over styles:

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk

The substantial reason for the change in date formats in this article is that Monaco uses the "littleendian" international date format of Day Month Year. In addition, the date formats were inconsistent and I rationalised them, as per my edit summary. --Jumbo 00:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You really needn't spam this one-sided presentation on each article you convert in your crusade. Emulating Monaco's date format is a dubious, rather than a substantial, reason for making the changes you seem intent on inflicting on all articles. It would be appropriate for you to wait until the community comments on what you are doing rather than simply doing as you please. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)